DAMARIS LADY MASHAM AN LEIBNIZ

S^r Oates 20 October 1705.

I should have no Cause to wonder if you were not unwilling to Give over a commerce which brought you so poor returns as are my Letters for Yours. Your Excuseing to me therefore your silence is very obligeing as a mark of your puting a value on my correspondence that it has no claim to: But the reason you give of your not haveing writ to me sooner has renew'd in me a Sorrow which I could not but pertake in with all the world to whom were known (thō but by Fame onely) the Great Endowments and Accomplishments of that Admirable Princess whose Death has so much Afflicted you. One cannot have a deeper sense than I have of Your Particular Loss in this Universal One: and if ever Greif was just yours must be allow'd to be so.

The Experience of the Wisest dos I find on some occasions attest to this truth, that La *Sensibilité ne depend pas du Raisonnement*. There is however much difference betwixt Them and Others; in that if Theire Reason dos not always Triumph, it yet at least hinders Passion from doing so: and it is a Happy distinction not to be Led Captive by those Tyrants under which the Generalitie of Mankind suffer a worse Slaverie than the most Arbitrarie Masters can inflict.

I was Highly Honour'd in haveing any Thoughts of Mine Communicated to the Queene of Prussia: but what you thought worth the answering I cannot wonder that She vouchsaf'd a Heareing to.

I have flatter'd myself since my last to you that, possibly, within another yeare I might have the oportunitie to converse with you better than by letters, in seeing You at Hanover: for if some whose Judgments I rely upon, had thought it fit for a Young Gentleman destin'd to the Study of the Law to spend a little Time first in Travelling, I should with his Fathers leave, Gladly have accompany'd my Son in such a Voyage: both as proposing great Pleasure therein; and also as haveing been persuaded that Travelling would contribute to my Health, which has been much disorder'd this Last Yeare.

You have added to the many Reasons I have to Regret the Death of M^r Locke in leting me know that it will hinder the Publick from Profiting by your Remarks upon his Essay. The debates of Those who equally search Truth cannot but be advantageous to the discoverie of it, or to the seting it in a Clearer Light: and which ever it be, both Parties in such cases will think themselves alike Gainers.

I am sorry with you that the strength or weakness of any notion which you beleeve important to be known, should not be so. It were to be wish'd that All who in respect of any Usefull Truth, have views beyond others would not neglect to communicate them, that so They may be out of danger of being useless to the World. This should methinks induce You to oblige, as M^r Le Clerc tells you you would do, all the Lovers of Philosophy, in explaining at Large Your Systeme; whereby it being set in a just Light, the advantages of it may neither be Lost; nor prejudic'd, by the unskilfull representation that, it may be, some other Person who shall less perfectly comprehend it, may some time, or other, venture to give of it. This I cannot but wish; and This I find some hope you will be Excited to by M^r Bayle's Reflection upon Your sentiments amongst Those of Others.

If you have read what has been writ betwixt him and M^r Le Clerc on the subject of the Hypothesis of the Plastick Nature as asserted by my Father, I should be very glad to know whether what M^r Bayle has offer'd dos amount to any thing more than a beging of the Question That God cannot make an unknowing Agent so as to Act to wise Ends; yet without such his Perpetual direction thereof as the Cartesian Hypothesis gives to Material Causes: for if it be conceivable for God to do so, but not conceivable for senseless Matter of it self to Act for Ends; My Fathers Hypothesis is methinks sufficiently secur'd from the Retorsion of Atheists, without being in the same Case with any one which makes God the immediate Efficient Cause of all the Effects of Nature. Since my Father dos not therein assert (as M^r Bayle says he dos) That God has been able to give to Creatures a Facultie of Produceing Excellent ~~Works, (viz such as is the Organization of Plants and Animals) seperate from all Knowledge~~ etc: but Onely a Facultie of Executeing instrumentally his Ideas or Designs in the Production of such Excellent Works: so that ( according to him) there is (differently from what M^r Bayle asserts of his Hypothesis) an inseparable union betwixt ~~the Power of produceing Excellent Works, and the Idea of theire Essence, and manner of produceing them.~~ and it seems to me that there can be no Pretence for the Retorsion of Atheists unless it were asserted, That God had been able to give to Creatures a Facultie of produceing excellent works, the Ideas whereof never were in any Understanding: But my Father is so far from asserting any such thing as This, that he holds the Operations of the Plastick Nature to be essentially and necessarilie dependent on the Ideas in the divine Intellect. So that (I conceive) if Matter could be suppos'd to have of it self that same Pow'r which Plastick Natures are said to have by the Gift of God, it would not help the Atheists Cause at all: Because the Pow'r giv'n to Plastick Natures being onely a Pow'r to Execute the Ideas of a Perfect Mind; if there were no Mind in the Universe; this Pow'r in the Matter must Lye for ever Dormant, and unproductive of any such Excellent Work as is spoken of.

Thus I see not in my Fathers Hypothesis that there is Effectively (as M^r Bayle affirms) a ~~Compatibilitie suppos'd of a Pow'r to Organize Animals, with the want of Knowledge.~~ Since to the Production of such a work as This, two things (according to my Father) must concur viz the Idea of the work to be Executed, with an Executive Pow'r of bringing this Idea into real Existence: and it is onely the last of these which he ascribes to Plastick Natures.

But M^r Bayle argues, That if Plastick Natures have no Intire Efficiencie of theire owne, they will then need such Perpetual direction as is ascrib'd to Material Causes; and so my Fathers Hypothesis will be but in the same Case with the Cartesian. M^r Bayle Affirms this; but (as I think) he no where Proves it: All that he offers amounting (as I have alreadie observ'd) onelie to a beging of this Question, that God cannot make a Creature to Act but either from Ideas of what it dos; or else by such Perpetual Direction as that of the Cartesian Material Causes. Whence he rigthly infers that if Plastick Natures Act not by Ideas which They have, as it is presum'd the Destroying Angel did to in distinguishing the Egyptians from the Israelites etc. They then must Act as He supposes Fire, had it so pleas'd God, might have done, in Destroying the First Born of Egypt; Viz by Gods Perpetual applying and directing it.

But to Any ones bare Assertion that a thing is Inconceivable, it is surely answer sufficient that Others find it not to be so. Thō my Father has giv'n some instances which he thinks prove the Possibilitie of such a manner of Action as he ascribes to Plastick Natures; Viz in the Operations of Habits: as (for Example) Those of Singing and Danceing, which shall oftentimes direct the Motions of the Body, or Voice, without any Consideration of what the next Note, or Motion should be.

I beg Leave here to tresspass so much farther on Your Patience, as to observe to you one thing wherin M^r Bayle is mistaken in reference to this matter, which has not been taken notice of, and that is, in a presumeing that my Father design'd in introduceing his Hypothesis, to oppose the Modern Cartesians: whereas He (not understanding French) did not know that the Modern Cartesians differ'd so much from theire Master as to hold that God was the Immediate Efficient Cause of all the Effects of Nature and the Hypothesis of the Plastick Nature (produc'd by him for the acquiting from the suspicion of Atheism some who held a Plastick Life distinct from the Animal) was very far from haveing the Cartesians in View; however They may find themselves convinc'd when the opinion of such is condemn'd as held that God himself did All immediately in the Efformation and organization of the Bodies of Animals, as well as the other phenomena: which with the Opinion of all things comeing to pass Fortuitously, my Father consider'd as the onely two Hypothesises which were oppos'd to that of Plastick Natures.

Now M^r Bayle considering Perpetual Direction onelie in such a sense as makes God the Immediate Efficient cause of all the Effects of Nature, presumes that my Father is oblig'd to deny all kind of Perpetual Direction to Plastick Natures; which (as I take it) he dos not: Since (according to him) theire Operations are always determin'd by the Ideas in the Divine Intellect; and his Hypothesis opposes onely such Direction as makes God the Immediate Efficient Cause of all the Works of Nature. Plastick Natures being by him substituted as the Agents or Executioners of the Divine Will and Pleasure. As Perpetual Direction then is understood, or may be Explain'd, it seemes to me that Plastick Natures may be, and are by my Father, in what he says of them, both affirm'd and deny'd to have Perpetual Direction: in which, if he talks Contradictiously, or Inconsistently it lies upon M^r Bayle to show that he dos so, Stateing first rightly what is herein asserted by him.

I pretend not at all to be Positive in any thing which I have here ventur'd to say on so nice a subject, and so much above my Examination as not easilie to be set in a due Light by two so Acute and extraordinarie Men as both M^r Le Clerc and M^r Bayle are. I onelie take the libertie briefly to suggest to you my Thoughts thereon to the end that I may learn from you how far they are Right.

The Last answer of M^r Le Clerc I have not yet read, his Civilitie in sending me one (which I heare has miscarry'd) haveing made me thus Long neglect buying it. But I am told that M^r Bayle will still reply: and that the subject of the Controversie is by some thought to be by M^r Le Clercs answer too much enlarg'd in a Consideration of the usefulness of the Hypothesis of Plastick Natures, which is not necessarie to the inquirie, whether, or no, this Hypothesis is expos'd to the Retorsion of Atheists.

On which subject I have dwelt Long enough both to need your Pardon, and to forbid my adding any thing More to this Letter that might induce you to explain to me farther your Sentiments on some other important Inquiries mention'd in the last letter you Honourd me with.

I am with due acknowledgment of your Condescention in incourageing me in this Manner to trouble you, and with very great Esteem and Respect

S^r Your Most Humble Servant Da Masham

Your last letter to me lay several weeks in this country before it came to my Hands as being sent to a Gentlemans house where I was dayly exspected. All acidents of this nature will be prevented and M^r Pickelaer have no farther trouble than to send them to the Post House if you please to direct thus

For My Lady Masham at Oates.

To be left with M^r Harison at the Crowne in Harlow.